The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by Anteater

Being able to corroborate evidence is important, and the recent FBI investigation didn't turn up anything that counteracted the statements others have given (which all amounted to "I don't remember being at a party like Ford described").

If people believe Kavanaugh is a rapist (which I don't think he is), then they should prove it. That's all it comes down to.

i) The FBI investigation wasn't thorough, and up to 20 people who could've given corroboration weren't interviewed, which surely makes the conclusion that they found no corroborating evidence meaningless.

ii) Kavanaugh isn't being accused of rape. He has been credably accused of a drunken sexual assault and on a seperate occasion of exposing himself.

iii) McCabe and Rosenstein of the FBI are old pals of Kavanaugh, which partly explains the unbalanced treatment that has been given to this report. Just before the 2016 election, the FBI released to the public their interview notes about the Clinton email scandal "in the interests of transparency." Why can't we see the interview notes of the Kavanaugh case? Why is transparency desirable in one case but not the other? Instead of transparency, there is ONE copy of the BK report, kept under lock and key, that even senators can only look at for one hour at a time. In this era of instant electronic copying, isn't that something of a red flag? That the process and report is only giving the appearance of revealing information, while in effect concealing it?

iii) As [MERIT] points out, there are plenty of other reasons, apart from the sex allegations that indicate Kavanaugh's unsuitability.

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

There are enough reasons to dislike Kavanaugh based on his record as a judge, without even needing to delve into his personal affairs: https://fee.org/articles/the-constit...-supreme-court

iv) 600 members of the American Bar Association have signed a letter saying that BK isn't suitable, and a retired Supreme Court judge has made the same point in a tv interview.

v) BK's performance before the commitee:-

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

Those Thursday hearings...are Kavanaugh's job interview. If that's the case, Kavanaugh failed spectacularly by:-

i) raising the irrelevant topic of his daughter's prayers and then weeping about them
ii) claiming to be exhonorated by witnesses who don't remember. It's a glaring failure in a judge if he can't grasp that there is a distinction between "That person doesn't remember" and "That event didn't happen."
iii) evading and ultimately declining to answer certain questions.
iv) ranting about a partisan conspiracy dating back to the Clinton era
v) calling the commitee process "a circus"

In trying to defend his suitability for the Supreme Court he actually exposed just how unsuitable he is. If this was indeed a job interview I wouldn't give the job to someone who was by turns maudline, self-pitying, partisan and belligerent , I'd give the job to a candidate who was polite, cooperative and respectful throughout: Dr. Ford.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

She did pass a polygraph test. That's pretty concrete.

Polygraph tests are the direct opposite of concrete evidence.

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic;2002824[/quote

ii) Kavanaugh isn't being accused of rape. He has been credably accused of a drunken sexual assault and on a seperate occasion of exposing himself.

The second one is a puritanical non-issue. Sexual assault is good enough, don't need to latch onto everything.

[rostasi]

Dear Leader sees something on the Dumbotron and thinks it's real.

DONALD TRUMP WAS SCARED NORTH KOREA FIRED MISSILES AFTER WATCHING OLD FOOTAGE ON FOX NEWS

[Ninetales]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

She did pass a polygraph test. That's pretty concrete.

... no it's not

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Polygraph tests are the direct opposite of concrete evidence.

At an average of 87% accuracy I'd say they are far from the opposite of concrete. Factor in that she volunteered for the test - she had a choice not to take one - and I'd say it a pretty damn good indicator that she told the truth.

That aside, his partisan diatribe and lack of ability to control his emotions during his testimony should have gotten him removed. Could you imagine if H-Clinton had cried and yelled during her countless hours testifying before the judiciary committee? Every male member of the GOP congress would have gotten an erection that lasted for longer than 8 hours.

[WWWP]

Polygraph tests are unreliable and rightfully not admissable as evidence in courts of law.

Ford didn't need to take a polygraph to be credible, it just helped get her in front of the judiciary comittee.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

That aside, his partisan diatribe and lack of ability to control his emotions during his testimony should have gotten him removed.

Don't believe that awful acting. It was like watching someone do a scene from The Room for a high school talent show.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

At an average of 87% accuracy I'd say they are far from the opposite of concrete.

Let me guess, you got that number from the American Polygraph Association.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Polygraph

Trash tech as far as lie detection goes.

[Exo]

Kavanaugh confirmed.

You know, it's decisions like this that make you remember and realize that we're only a few decades removed from segregation laws. Society has a long way to go.

[Frownland]

10/5: 2018 Nobel Peace Prize Recognizes Warriors Against Sexual Violence

10/6: Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court by Senate